Proposal Preparation & Evaluation Process

Recall about Funding Splitting ITD leaders & Associates Organisation necessary to the delivery of the platform objectives 7 years commitment Sign the JTI Statutes Participate in JTI operational costs Cannot respond to the Calls for Proposals of the platform Partners will respond to the calls for proposal (CFP) organised by Clean Sky JU CFP follows the ITDs Specifications Contract for a limited duration up to 7 years

Clean Sky Peculiarities Topics and not research themes, with limited duration and specific targeted results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels). Topics prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers at the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (JU). Budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum funding A single entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created There is ONE winner per topic

Clean Sky Peculiarities Funding up to 75% IPR agreed at the beginning with the Topic Manager Single entity or consortium Day-to-day work with the Topic Manager Contract managed by the CS Project Officer: reporting, costs claims, amendment requests, … Reporting and Review at the end of each reporting period (up to 18 months) Time to contract: 6 months after the launch of the call (« target ») A promising start for SME and research organisations (academic or not)

Clean Sky Web Site

Call Fiche and Rules for Participation X X

Topic Fiche

Looking for Partners

Three guiding principles: Proposal Evaluation Three guiding principles: Objectivity Each proposal is evaluated as it is written Accuracy Proposal evaluated against the official evaluation criteria, and nothing else Consistency The same standard of judgment is applied to each proposal

Eligibility Criteria Receipt before deadline Firm deadlines Completeness of proposal Presence of all requested forms “Out of scope” A proposal will only be deemed ineligible in clear cut case Other criteria may apply Eg. budget limits

Eligibility Criteria Proposal Total Cost Affiliation Make sure this total amount is below the value of the topic! Affiliation Applicants who are affiliated to any leaders or associate of an ITD will be declared not eligible for the topics of that ITD Please check on the Web Site the composition of the ITDs in the dedicated page!

Criteria adapted to Clean Sky Evaluation Criteria Criteria adapted to Clean Sky Specified in the Rules for Participation and Rules for Submission of Proposals; refer also to sec. 3.10 Instructions for drafting "Part B" of the CS-RTD proposal Six main criteria: C1 Technical excellence C2 Innovative Character C3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance) C4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record C5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) C6 Contribution to European Competitiveness

Each criterion is scored 0-5 Proposal Scoring Each criterion is scored 0-5 half-scores to be used whole range should be considered Scores must pass thresholds if a proposal is to be considered for funding Thresholds apply to individual criteria… Default threshold is 3 …and to the total score higher than the sum of the individual thresholds Default threshold is 20

Scores Interpretation 0 - The proposal fails to address the criterion under examination or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information 1 - Poor. The criterion is addressed in an inadequate manner, or there are serious inherent weaknesses. 2 - Fair. While the proposal broadly addresses the criterion, there are significant weaknesses. 3 - Good. The proposal addresses the criterion well, although improvements would be necessary. 4 - Very Good. The proposal addresses the criterion very well, although certain improvements are still possible. 5 - Excellent. The proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question. Any shortcomings are minor.

Evaluation Criteria Assessment (1/4) Proposal 1. Scientific and Technical quality 1.1 Progress beyond the State of the Art Describe the state of the art and demonstrate the innovative character of the proposal This section will be used to assess evaluation criteria: C2 Innovative Character

Evaluation Criteria Assessment (2/4) 1.2 Scientific and Technology methodology and work plan: A detailed work plan should be presented, broken down into work packages (WPs). Please present your plans as follows: 1.2.1) Describe the overall strategy of the work plan. 1.2.2) Show the timing of the different WPs and their components (Gantt chart or similar timetable) 1.2.3) Provide a detailed work description broken down into work packages: 1.2.4) Provide a graphical presentation of the components showing their interdependencies (Pert diagram or similar) 1.2.5) Describe any significant risks, and associated contingency plans. This section will be used to assess evaluation criteria: C1 Technical excellence C3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance)

Evaluation Criteria Assessment (3/4) 2. Implementation 2.1 Management structure and procedures 2.2 Participants 2.3 Resources to be committed In addition to the costs indicated in Part A of the proposal, and the staff effort shown in table 5 above, please indicate any other major costs (e.g. equipment). Please ensure that the figures stated in part B are consistent with those in Part A. This section will be used to assess the evaluation criteria: C4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record C5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment)

Evaluation Criteria Assessment (4/4) 3. Impact 3.1 Expected impacts Describe how your project will contribute to the expected impacts in relation to the Topic in question. Mention the steps that will be needed to bring about these impacts. Mention any assumptions and external factors that may determine whether the impacts will be achieved. 3.2 Dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and management of intellectual property Describe the measures you propose for the dissemination and/or exploitation of project results, and the management of knowledge and intellectual property rights. This section will be used to assess the evaluation criteria: C6 Contribution to European Competitiveness

Evaluation Criteria Summary   Six CRITERIA 1 Technical excellence EXCELLENCE 2 Innovative character INNOVATION 3 Compliance with the Call for Proposals specification and timetable (relevance) COMPLIANCE / RELEVANCE 4 Adequacy and quality of respondent's resources, management and implementation capabilities and track record CAPABILITY 5 Appropriateness and efficient allocation of the resources to be committed (budget, staff, equipment) EFFICIENCY 6 Contribution to European competitiveness IMPACT

Evaluation Process Overview publication EVALUATION SELECTION Submission Individual reading Consensus Panel Finalisation Full Proposal Proposal forms Evaluators Evaluators Evaluators Final ranking list Criteria Criteria Criteria Rejection list Proposals in suggested priority order Eligibility For each proposal All proposals Clean Sky JU Clean Sky JU ITDs Role of experts

Roles in the Evaluation (1/2) Observer Role: To give advice to the Clean Sky JU on: conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation ways in which the experts acting as evaluators apply the evaluation criteria and on ways in which the procedures could be improved. The observer shall not express views on the proposals under evaluation or the experts' opinions on the proposals. Moderator Role: Typically a Project Officer of the Clean Sky JU Assures the interface between the experts panel and the Topic manager Moderates the consensus meeting, helping reaching a final agreed evaluation of each proposal Keeps track of the process, assuring the proper approval at different steps of evaluation

Roles in the Evaluation (2/2) External/Internal Experts Role: Provide independent, impartial and objective advice to the JU/Commission Represent neither the employer, nor the country Significant funding decisions will be made on the basis of their advice Can also add value to projects through their comments and suggestions (Recommendations) Topic Manager Role: Briefing of experts on the technical goals of the call and the technical context against which the proposals have to be evaluated To assist on any query by experts, through the moderator Provide additional technical information when appropriate

Consensus Meeting The consensus discussion is moderated by the CSJU Staff member, assisted by the Topic Manager. The role of the Moderator is to seek: to arrive at a consensus between the individual views of experts without any prejudice for or against particular proposals or the organisations involved, and to ensure a confidential, fair and equitable evaluation of each proposal according to the required evaluation criteria. The Topic Manager provides additional technical information only when appropriate.

Topic Panel To ensure consistency Prioritise proposals with identical consensus scores, after any adjustments for consistency Resolve any cases where a minority view is recorded in the consensus report Clear guidance for contract negotiation Produces final marks and comments for each proposal List of proposals, with recommendations for priority order Evaluation Summary Reports (ESR) Usually follows the consensus report Any new scores (if necessary) … should be carefully justified

Concluding Remarks Opportunity to fund research project in alternative to classical FP7 Collaborative Research Project scheme, with very focused technical targets. Peculiarities with respect to FP7 on participation rules, proposal preparation and proposal evaluation. Main advices to write a good proposal: Fulfil the requirements contained in the topic description. Read carefully the documentation of the call. In particular rules of participation in order to understand how your proposal will be evaluated (A summary is provided in this presentation). Check eligibility criteria. Find complementary partners in order to have a good consortium if needed. All information about the call and tools in order to help you to apply can be found on the Clean Sky Web Site: www.cleansky.eu.

© 2012 by the CleanSky Leading Partners: Airbus, AgustaWestland, Alenia Aeronautica, Dassault Aviation, EADS-CASA, Eurocopter, Fraunhofer Institute, Liebherr Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, Saab AB, Safran Thales and the European Commission. Permission to copy, store electronically, or disseminate this presentation is hereby granted freely provided the source is recognized. No rights to modify the presentation are granted.